A Protection For Girls Faces A Constitutional Challenge
The Gambia’s Supreme Court is hearing a case that could determine whether the country’s ban on female genital mutilation survives.
In Almameh Gibba and Seven Others v. The Attorney General, religious traditionalists and former lawmakers are challenging Sections 32A and 32B of the Women’s Act. They argue that criminalising FGM violates constitutional protections for religious and cultural freedom.
The proceedings remain active, with witnesses still being heard and no final judgment issued. The court is therefore not simply reviewing an old political dispute. It is deciding whether the state’s duty to protect girls can override claims made in the name of religion and tradition.
The Ban Survived Parliament Before Reaching Court
The Gambia outlawed FGM in 2015. For years, however, enforcement remained limited.
The political fight intensified after the country recorded its first convictions under the law in 2023. In 2024, lawmakers considered a bill that would have repealed the ban and made The Gambia the first country to reverse an existing national prohibition on FGM.
Survivors, women’s organisations and civil-society groups mobilised against the proposal. Parliament ultimately rejected the repeal, preserving the legal protection.
But the campaign did not end. After losing in the National Assembly, opponents challenged the law before the Supreme Court, shifting the dispute from elected lawmakers to constitutional judges.
A Chilling Defence Was Heard In Court
The case is formally being argued around constitutional freedoms, but testimony supporting the challenge has exposed a deeper struggle over women’s bodies.
One witness, when questioned about two babies who reportedly died following FGM, said death was “God HYPERLINK “https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/02/02/gambias-supreme-court-to-decide-on-fgm-ban”‘ HYPERLINK “https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/02/02/gambias-supreme-court-to-decide-on-fgm-ban”s will.” He also argued that reducing women’s sexual desire was a benefit because female desire could become a problem for men.
That testimony transforms the case from an abstract debate about legal rights into a confrontation over bodily autonomy. It suggests that some defences of the practice are rooted not only in tradition, but in the belief that women’s sexuality should be controlled for the benefit of men.
In earlier testimony from the same proceedings, another witness described becoming a circumciser after the practice was passed through generations of her family. She told the court she used razor blades sterilised in boiling water and viewed the procedure as part of her religious and cultural upbringing.
These witnesses do not represent every Gambian Muslim. FGM predates Islam, is not practised by all Muslim communities and is rejected by many Muslim scholars, activists and families. The case concerns particular actors invoking religion to defend the practice, not Islam as a whole.
Nearly Three In Four Women Have Undergone FGM
The legal battle is unfolding in a country where FGM remains deeply entrenched.
About 73 percent of Gambian women aged 15 to 49 have undergone the practice. Many are cut during early childhood, before they can understand what is happening or provide consent.
FGM has no medical benefit. It can cause severe bleeding, infection, chronic pain, complications during childbirth, psychological trauma and death. Under international human-rights law, it is recognised as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and, in some circumstances, torture.
A Weak Law Still Matters
The existence of a ban has not ended FGM in The Gambia.
Prosecutions remain rare, enforcement is inconsistent and campaigners say some procedures have moved underground. Families resisting the practice can face intense pressure from relatives and communities, while mothers seeking official help may discover that protection is limited in practice.
That means even a Supreme Court victory would not solve the wider crisis. The government would still need stronger enforcement, survivor support, public education and protection for families refusing to cut their daughters.
But striking down the ban would make the situation worse.
It would remove the only formal legal barrier against the practice, weaken mothers who invoke the law to protect their children and signal that hard-won protections can be reversed when political and religious pressure becomes strong enough.
The court is not deciding whether FGM already happens. It does.
It is deciding whether the state will continue recognising that girls have a right to be protected from it.
By Verity Quill
Sources Used
- Al Jazeera: Gambian Mothers Fear For Their Daughters As Court Weighs FGM Ban
- Human Rights Watch: Gambia — Bill Threatens Female Genital Mutilation Ban
- Human Rights Watch: Gambia HYPERLINK “https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/02/02/gambias-supreme-court-to-decide-on-fgm-ban”‘ HYPERLINK “https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/02/02/gambias-supreme-court-to-decide-on-fgm-ban”s Supreme Court To Decide On FGM Ban
- IPS News: Gambia HYPERLINK “https://www.ipsnews.net/2026/01/gambias-supreme-court-to-decide-on-fgm-ban/”‘ HYPERLINK “https://www.ipsnews.net/2026/01/gambias-supreme-court-to-decide-on-fgm-ban/”s Supreme Court To Decide On FGM Ban
The Point: Female Circumcision Is Part Of Our Culture, Religion, Witness Tells Supreme Court
